The problem with your long lists of verses, many of which are completely unrelated to one another except for the coincidence that you have listed them together in one place, is that they mean nothing without applying them to a situation at hand. That is the essence of interpretation -- trying to understand what the ancient text meant in its original context, and then applying that meaning to our own present context with validity and integrity. But your lists of verses lack any discussion of context or application whatsoever. Whatever the common thread is that you think binds them together remains unidentified. Whatever the special meaning is that you find in them remains hidden from us -- not because the Holy Spirit is silent but because you are, not because we are unwilling to hear but because you are unwilling to speak.

As someone who's LDS, let me add a little more insight.

You see, one of the most commonly-used argument techniques that critics of the LDS faith use is "deliberately stripping verses & quotes from their context."

For example, let us take the following citation from Alma 18 within the Book of Mormon:

24. And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

25. And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.

26. And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

27. And he said, Yea.

28 And Ammon said: This is God. And ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

A number of critics, such as Jerald (RIP) and Sandra Tanner, have tried to argue that this passage is literally declaring God to be a "spirit"; thus, they reason, it contradicts LDS theology concerning God having a perfected body.

Thing is, those who put forth the argument conveniently ignore this other passage from the same chapter:

5. Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants;

Lamoni, a nobleman, owned several flocks of animals. But after a string of bandit attacks resulted in his flocks being scattered, Lamoni ordered that the servants who failed to halt the bandits be put to the sword as punishment for what he believed to have been their cowardice and/or incompetence (in reality, they were simply overwhelmed; the bandits were in large numbers and had actual combat experience). But when a foreign servant named Ammon single-handedly wailed on the bandits and shattered them as an organization (it notes that every bandit who raised a weapon to Ammon lost at least one limb), Lamoni was so shocked that he sought Ammon out. Ammon, realizing what the noble wanted, began to witness.

As we can see from verse #5, Lamoni had been taught of a "Great Spirit." Ammon, realizing that Lamoni was of a different religious system, co-opted some of the terminology in order to make things easier for Lamoni to comprehend. Thus, the passage the Tanners cite actually represented Ammon saying that "your god and my god are the same being." They also ignore the fact that Ammon's approach was ultimately successful: because Ammon was such a great example before Lamoni and because Ammon made things simple enough for Lamoni to understand, Lamoni was eventually converted along with a number of people in his household.

Because of this tendency for critics of the church to take so much out of context, whenever a Mormon is presented with a scriptural citation or a historical quote from someone the general response is to demand a source citation and personally look it up themselves.

What is rediculous is the idea that some of you want to argue the Word of God without the Word of God. Its alot easier to dispute the Word if you dont have to use the Word to do it. I feel sorry for all of you. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin.

We all have the Bible, read it, and use it. But if you can't apply the lessons of the Bible to your own situation and express them in your own words, you have learned nothing from them. Merely quoting the text means nothing unless you also interpret and apply it -- it is abusing the Bible, not using it.

We're happy to listen to you quote a passage if you then explain how it applies to the point you want to make. We're happy to listen to you quote multiple passages from different texts if you also explain how you see them to be related. But there isn't anything to be gained by reading a long list of random, unrelated verses that you selected, and then try to puzzle out what you think they mean, if you won't even say so yourself. If you're going to assert a proposition (such as your opinion that mine is "worthless"), and then list dozens of isolated verses to support your opinion, each of which is removed from the context of its surrounding text and none of which directly says what you assert, you need to explain how you drew that conclusion from those verses.

If you do, however, it is valid for others to question your analysis. What is in doubt is not the inherent authority of the verses you choose, but the conclusion that you (and on this point, apparently you alone) draw from them.

"To substitute Scripture for the self-revealing Spirit is to put the dead letter in the place of the living Word." Sebastian Franck

What is rediculous is the idea that some of you want to argue the Word of God without the Word of God. Its alot easier to dispute the Word if you dont have to use the Word to do it. I feel sorry for all of you. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a sin.

We all have the Bible, read it, and use it. But if you can't apply the lessons of the Bible to your own situation and express them in your own words, you have learned nothing from them. Merely quoting the text means nothing unless you also interpret and apply it -- it is abusing the Bible, not using it.

We're happy to listen to you quote a passage if you then explain how it applies to the point you want to make. We're happy to listen to you quote multiple passages from different texts if you also explain how you see them to be related. But there isn't anything to be gained by reading a long list of random, unrelated verses that you selected, and then try to puzzle out what you think they mean, if you won't even say so yourself. If you're going to assert a proposition (such as your opinion that mine is "worthless"), and then list dozens of isolated verses to support your opinion, each of which is removed from the context of its surrounding text and none of which directly says what you assert, you need to explain how you drew that conclusion from those verses.

If you do, however, it is valid for others to question your analysis. What is in doubt is not the inherent authority of the verses you choose, but the conclusion that you (and on this point, apparently you alone) draw from them.

I said

You say one thing, and then do something else. I think that is called an oxymoron. You say quote the verses then explain them. I give my answer and show the verses that motivated me to the answer. The verses prove my answer. And you cant see it. You call them unrelated verses. I would say one of us is blind. And it cant be me because I'm the one that received the verses that you cant understand.

You say one thing, and then do something else. I think that is called an oxymoron.

An "oxymoron" is a situation wherein two contradictory aspects are ascribed to the same thing. Examples include a bittersweet moment or a meal prepared with sweet & sour sauce.

You say quote the verses then explain them. I give my answer and show the verses that motivated me to the answer.

In other words, you admit to doing it backwards.

Most people give one or two verses at a time and then offer a full explanation.

If you need an example, take a look at my previous post wherein I was demonstrating the importance of context; if your citations take up more space in a post than the explanation, then you're doing something wrong.

You say one thing, and then do something else. I think that is called an oxymoron.

An "oxymoron" is a situation wherein two contradictory aspects are ascribed to the same thing. Examples include a bittersweet moment or a meal prepared with sweet & sour sauce.

You say quote the verses then explain them. I give my answer and show the verses that motivated me to the answer.

In other words, you admit to doing it backwards.

Most people give one or two verses at a time and then offer a full explanation.

If you need an example, take a look at my previous post wherein I was demonstrating the importance of context; if your citations take up more space in a post than the explanation, then you're doing something wrong.

I said

Now you understand. We are to be slow to speak quick to listen and slow to wrath. We are to wait on the HOly Spirit to guide us. You just speak your mind while I wait on the Holy Spirit. I am led by the Spirit, you are led by your flesh. You do it the same way the rest of mankind does it. I do it differently.

Matt 7:13-1413 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.(NKJ)

John 6:6363 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.(NKJ)

2 Cor 5:55 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.(NKJ)

Now you understand. We are to be slow to speak quick to listen and slow to wrath. We are to wait on the HOly Spirit to guide us. You just speak your mind while I wait on the Holy Spirit. I am led by the Spirit, you are led by your flesh. You do it the same way the rest of mankind does it. I do it differently.

Matt 7:13-1413 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.14 "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.(NKJ)

John 6:6363 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.(NKJ)

2 Cor 5:55 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.(NKJ)

There, you did it again.

None of those verses say that you are led by the Spirit or that Ironhold is led by the flesh. Neither did you try to explain how you reach that conclusion from those verses.

That being the case, you are merely speaking your mind in saying so, which is the same thing you accuse Ironhold of doing.

"To substitute Scripture for the self-revealing Spirit is to put the dead letter in the place of the living Word." Sebastian Franck

I cant do nothing about your lack of understanding. Like I said before all I can do is demonstrate the Spirit.

1 Cor 2:4-54 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.(NKJ)

I cant do nothing about your lack of understanding. Like I said before all I can do is demonstrate the Spirit.1 Cor 2:4-54 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.(NKJ)

i'm sorry; do you REALLY think that the Spirit wants you to be unclear or confusing? To refuse to explain yourself, or how the verse(s) given you are relevant?

i think you have an immediate need to query this Spirit you claim, and ask Our Father and His Son to help you in this investigation.

Now, as to the questions i had asked you earlier that you refused to answer:

Post 18:Does the Bible contain all truth? Does it speak of all things to come? Anyone think it was NOT the holy spirit that inspired George(Washington Carver)? Anyone dare to say that George was NOT a God-fearing man, and thereby risk blaspheming the Holy Spirit of the Most High God?Post 25:Will the Searcher of Mind and Heart wish to know more about the verses of the bible i can spout, or more about how i have treated His creatures and His creation? You may wish to re-read Matthew 25, especially the latter part concerning the respective destinations of the sheep and goats, and what criteria are used to separate them. Right?Post 32:"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."To whom or what does this cited passage refer, Squeakybro?Post 40:Where is the Bible to be shoved amongst the Trinity?Post 156:So you would choose to make a distinction between who is and is not one of Christ's brethren? How do YOU know?Or do you also choose to forget the parable of the Good Samaritan? Did the Samaritan stop to question the naked, bleeding, nearly-unconscious man about whether or not he was a brother before he helped him?If you make a judgment that someone is NOT your brother and treat him with contempt, or disregard his plea for help, how can you then claim the Son of God-whose-Name-is-Love? Paul is not King of kings; there is zero salvation in Paul; Paul did not Resurrect.Who was it that did, again?Post 174:Which of the following has the power to save?A. ChristB. The bible.Which of the following has the power to make children of God?A. ChristB. The bible.Which of the following will resurrect us at the Last Day?A. Christ.B. The bible.Post 181:But are you saying, then, that because the author of Hebrews says that a testimony is of no value until it's speaker is dead, that the testimony of the Living Christ is valueless?Maybe you should get your nose out of a book and ask the LIVING Christ directly, just perhaps, eh?He goes where He wills, and if you listen, you may hear the sound of Him, but you know not whence He comes nor whither He goes---why?Post 183:Is there testimony in a testament, yes or no? What is the word usually used to describe someone who gives a testimony? Post 186:If you won't answer the questions put to you directly and honestly, then what does that say about your integrity and honor? Your willingness to faithfully give answer to straightforward, guileless questions?

So, that's about it; but upon review, i saw where you had said that you "saw no questions, but accusations" when i first asked you to answer what were clearly questions, as there is a "?" at the end of them. Then later, in post 221, in response to several of Theo's questions, i see you say:

Dont mistake a question for an accusation.

LOL, indeed. Someone here speaketh out of both sides of his mouth.

So---planning on getting around to answering any of the above questions directly? Or if not, do you plan on citing the passages of scripture that support your point, then explain HOW they support your point, or are you just going to firehose me and say, 'If you don't get it, tough; you know nothing of the Holy Spirit', a spirit that, in and of itself, bears zero relation to any spirit that is truly holy?

Warmest regards-

Hatman

"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

I cant do nothing about your lack of understanding. Like I said before all I can do is demonstrate the Spirit. 1 Cor 2:4-54 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.(NKJ)

i'm sorry; do you REALLY think that the Spirit wants you to be unclear or confusing? To refuse to explain yourself, or how the verse(s) given you are relevant? i think you have an immediate need to query this Spirit you claim, and ask Our Father and His Son to help you in this investigation. Now, as to the questions i had asked you earlier that you refused to answer: Post 18: Does the Bible contain all truth? Does it speak of all things to come? Anyone think it was NOT the holy spirit that inspired George(Washington Carver)? Anyone dare to say that George was NOT a God-fearing man, and thereby risk blaspheming the Holy Spirit of the Most High God? Post 25: Will the Searcher of Mind and Heart wish to know more about the verses of the bible i can spout, or more about how i have treated His creatures and His creation? You may wish to re-read Matthew 25, especially the latter part concerning the respective destinations of the sheep and goats, and what criteria are used to separate them. Right? Post 32: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." To whom or what does this cited passage refer, Squeakybro? Post 40: Where is the Bible to be shoved amongst the Trinity? Post 156: So you would choose to make a distinction between who is and is not one of Christ's brethren? How do YOU know? Or do you also choose to forget the parable of the Good Samaritan? Did the Samaritan stop to question the naked, bleeding, nearly-unconscious man about whether or not he was a brother before he helped him? If you make a judgment that someone is NOT your brother and treat him with contempt, or disregard his plea for help, how can you then claim the Son of God-whose-Name-is-Love? Paul is not King of kings; there is zero salvation in Paul; Paul did not Resurrect. Who was it that did, again? Post 174: Which of the following has the power to save? A. Christ B. The bible. Which of the following has the power to make children of God? A. Christ B. The bible. Which of the following will resurrect us at the Last Day? A. Christ. B. The bible. Post 181: But are you saying, then, that because the author of Hebrews says that a testimony is of no value until it's speaker is dead, that the testimony of the Living Christ is valueless? Maybe you should get your nose out of a book and ask the LIVING Christ directly, just perhaps, eh? He goes where He wills, and if you listen, you may hear the sound of Him, but you know not whence He comes nor whither He goes---why? Post 183: Is there testimony in a testament, yes or no? What is the word usually used to describe someone who gives a testimony? Post 186: If you won't answer the questions put to you directly and honestly, then what does that say about your integrity and honor? Your willingness to faithfully give answer to straightforward, guileless questions? So, that's about it; but upon review, i saw where you had said that you "saw no questions, but accusations" when i first asked you to answer what were clearly questions, as there is a "?" at the end of them. Then later, in post 221, in response to several of Theo's questions, i see you say:

Dont mistake a question for an accusation.

LOL, indeed. Someone here speaketh out of both sides of his mouth. So---planning on getting around to answering any of the above questions directly? Or if not, do you plan on citing the passages of scripture that support your point, then explain HOW they support your point, or are you just going to firehose me and say, 'If you don't get it, tough; you know nothing of the Holy Spirit', a spirit that, in and of itself, bears zero relation to any spirit that is truly holy? Warmest regards- Hatman

I said

I have answered everyone of them questions. And what makes you think that you will see it this time if you didnt see it last time. When you eliminate Gods Word from a discussion about God. That is like eliminating a medical journal in practicing medicine.